Talk:Vegeta/Archive 3

Is a "Vegeta and Bulma" section really needed?

I don't see a point in having a Vegeta and Bulma section in here, none of the other DBZ articles have a section like that except for maybe the krillin one. But then again, that one is brought to the point because we all are aware that Krillin had been searching for a spouse for years, it (in a way) ties to his personality. I was thinking to have a Prince section included in either personality or history, and then just mentioning his childhood randomely through out the article. There isn't much to his childhood except the fact that he served Freeza for most of his life. Majinvegeta

Yup, I think that section is needed. Because it reveals some details about that couple. Sometimes, there are questions like this -"How is it that Vegeta have chosen Bulma?" Also, maybe I will sound stupid - but when someone will read section about Prince, he will miss some information, since there is not enough sayings, which are telling Vegeta`s personal life. (I mean, as a husband.) Yes - I know about Krillin and his lookings for a spouse. But this is a different story, especially when we are talking about an Earthling and Prince of the Saiyans. Krillin liked Android 18 (sorry, I don`t rememeber clearly - was it the scene, when 18 kissed him after defeating Z-Warriors, or the moment when Krillin crushed Android`s deactivation device?), but I think that Vegeta NEVER thought about searching for a wife or even to have any (also, why exactly Bulma?). BTW, I think that this section should have some story about Vegeta and Bulma from Alternate Timeline (From future of Mirai Trunks) to answer a questions like this one - what were there relations during that time? (Sorry for my English, if it isn`t correct. I am a Russian. :) )

I don't see anything wrong with your English.

Good points, but they aren't really important. For example: The Goku article doesn't have a "Goku and Chi Chi" section, because the relationship is not important. Same with Vegeta and Bulma. --Majinvegeta 23:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we can mention some things of their relationship but it doesn't deserve a full section -Dark Dragon Flame 00:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Over Nine Thousand!!

should a note be added about the youtube over 9000 debacle? -70.160.166.121 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No.--SUIT 23:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goku's power was "Over Nine Thousand" in the English dub anime, and only about 8,000 in the original manga. (Shouldn't this be in the Goku talk section?) Majin Vegeta

It should, but still may not be added.--SUIT 02:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only way it would ever be mentioned in an article is if it was to get on the news or something for some weird reason. Otherwise, it's not notable at all. Nemu 02:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if it would go anywhere, it would go in a "Meme" list, along with stuff like "All your base are belong to us". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.49.43.98 (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I readded it, and yes, it is quite noticable, the internet is used worldwide, used daily, it's an extension of the character's pop culture appeal, why does everthing have to depend on television exposure here? Dr. R.K.Z (talk · contribs)

There is a page for this here if you feel it is really needed write it there and put a link to the page, it's pointless to add irrelevant information to a page requiring cleanup, especially a unessesary paragraph like that one-Dark Dragon Flame 03:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until you even try to justify something with good exposure, I don't respect this decision, but I'll abide by it Dr. R.K.Z (talk · contribs) 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to take it badly, but it must be clear that no one has worked harder than users SUIT and Majinvegeta to make the DB pages better I have also done my part, Suit and I don't agree and Majinvegeta thinks it should be in other page, it is an unanimous desision that it should not be in this page-Dark Dragon Flame 21:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this belongs on the internet_fad page rather than here. Perhaps a link back to here but not in the Vegeta article. 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no "other page" that describes it, I've put in a description of the video near the bottom of the page and linked to the video as well as put a link to the Internet meme page. This is quite relevant and since it exists nowhere else this is the only sutable place for it to be mentioned here, aside from actually creating another article about it which seems to me to be wasted effort. Also, it is not mentioned on the List of internet phenomena page either. (Wiiac 16:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Someone erased it, thus I poofed it back into existance. Please discuss here if you delete it and state a (valid) reason. It exists, therefore it should be shown.(Wiiac 16:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

Vandilism

I wouldn't really expect vandilism on this type of page but someone has added "FAGGOT" right at the bottom of the first section. I tried removing it,but can't lol. So just letting y'all know! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.237.33 (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

suggested split

Why are the saiyan and Frieza sagas treated as a single section? this needs to be split DBZROCKS 00:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think when you think about Vegeta, the events of the Freeza saga and the Saiyan saga are somewhat tied together. This is different from Goku and anyone else though.--Majinvegeta 22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Saiyan 2?

I see people are having disagreements about when Vegeta becomes Super Saiyan 2, I will point out that When Goku fights Yakon, Vegeta vaguely suggests (but never specifically states) that he was capable of transforming, and Goku's fight with Yakon was prior to him becoming Majin Vegeta. So I just want to point out: First Appearence: Majin Vegeta. First transformation: Possibly earlier. This is not specifically stated though. What do you guys think? I also removed the bit about Vegeta always being in Super Saiyan 2 when as Majin Vegeta, this is untrue even in the Manga. Vegeta was Super Saiyan 1 when he first becomes Majin Vegeta, the lack of electricity (manga and anime) is a dead give-away --Majinvegeta 16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, first time we see Super Saiya-jin 2 Vegeta is when he is about to fight with Goku as Majin Vageta, however as you stated he was SSJ1 when he blew up the stadium -Dark Dragon Flame 17:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree totally, in the manga (not so much the anime) it is usually very easy to tell the difference between Super Saiyan 1 and Super Saiyan 2, he was definitely first level. In the Manga, Vegeta (when Goku fights Yakon) says something like (I'm sure this isn't the exact quote): "So Kakorrot has ascended the Super Saiyan as well? Why am I not surprised?". It is not clear whether Vegeta is talking about Goku ascending the Super Saiyan as well as him, or that Goku had ascended; just like Gohan. --Majinvegeta 04:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no electricity around him after he fights off Babidis possession either. His hair is clearly defined from the moment he becomes a Majin compared to the solid colouring of his SSJ1.Darkwarriorblake 13:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, he was definitely SS1. The reason why I changed the wording on the Majin Vegeta stuff was just to change it, I'm figity sometimes and like to change things. :) --Majinvegeta 14:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that in the Japanese version of the Anime, Vegeta never mentions Goku being stronger than him during their fight. In fact, Vegeta just talks about how he wanted to fight Goku really badly and allowed Babidi to take over him so he can have a chance of fighting Goku.

I remember from the English Dub, Vegeta states that he allowed Babidi to posses him because he saw Goku Transform into a Super Saiyan 2 while fighting Yakon. This would give him the Power needed to ascend. But then again he also mentions while fighting Goku that he pushed himself to the limit and beyond during the past 7 years to achieve that state, so it is pretty much confusing. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 00:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do recall in the manga that when Vegeta went SSJ2 people were surprised. Piccolo states that he has "broken through the Super Saiyan wall" or something like that- a phrase they were basically using to describe the 2nd level. Onikage725 23:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

I goofed on the description for the edit I just made. It should read, "What move CAN'T destroy small planets if enough power is put into it?" Paul Haymon 07:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry everybody screws up one of these summaries once in a while; about that question how about a Kamehameha 10x one of those at full power only can destroy a circus wheel, LOL -Dark Dragon Flame 22:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Brother??

Son Goku isn't Vegeta's half brother and will never be.

Just a sneaky vandalism edit that slped past us. -Dark Dragon Flame 23:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC) --Duane543 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey wait vegeta and ss2

Vegeta never uses Ss2 on majin buu except when he has the Majin Symbol himself. In fact it is almost assumed that he could not go ss2. Pay closer attention. Remember when goku fought kid buu in ss2 goku held his own, but when vegeta fought kid buu, Vegeta couldnt even land a single punch.

Uh

Goku was SSJ 3
Vegeta was SSJ 2
SSJ 3 goku was even with Kid Buu.

DBZROCKS 11:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DBZROCKS let me handle this. For the unsigned postee you do not seem to pay much attention to the anime or the manga. First of you are refering to the Kid Buu saga episode 281 unedited called Minute of Desperation. I can get what you mean as for most of the fight even when Vegeta transformed he did truly appear as a normal SSJ but as the fight went on the lightning aura did show up a couple of time but still that could mean little but this is where you are completely wrong on you. Dragon Ball manga volume 42 (the last volume of the Dragon Ball manga, Dragon Ball Z American manga Volume 26 if you can't find the japanese version) in the manga during that fight between Buu and Vegeta Vegeta was a SSJ2. So as the anime is based off the manga and the manga is what we usually use to edit, Vegeta is a SSJ2. Oh ya Vegeta did get a couple of good hit in on Buu but had no effect. You need to rewatch that episode and read the manga and investagate more before posting something like that again. We have a lot of dedates about the Super Saiyan forms of Vegeta as well as Adult Gohan do to there hair and lack of lightning aura. So please do more research. thank you. Heat P 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is with all the pics??

Pics are good, but I have two issues:

There's too many
Some of them don't even serve a true purpose, I don't think we need one of Vegeta shaving for "appearance"

I think we need to reassess what pics to keep and what to take out. --MajinVegeta 20:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegeta/Saiyan

The name for the saiyan saga is vegeta saga now.TheClownPrinceofCrime 00:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok they want me to put a valid reason for the change and here goes. This is the english version of the wikipedia. Now since it is English is primarily spoken in America. In America the saga is call Vegeta. Now I prupose we put saiyan/Vegeta. This puts both on there.TheClownPrinceofCrime 01:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh see WP:DBZ yes this is the English wikipedia but our tag says worldwide, which means we are not using only the funimation dubs, we are using the more universally known orginal japanese names. This has been decided for some time now and is not changing. Give up DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DBZROCKS, and I noticed one of your edit summaries said that Funi was the distributor. Not true, Toei created the anime and distributed it in Japan (and they speak English in Japan, believe it or not), therefore we use those names. And "English being primarily spoken in America" is not a valid reason, we try to avoid any facts that are presented soley in the Dub (such as name changes like....say for example: The "Vegeta" Saga). Just so you know, I in particular don't pussy-foot around when it comes to vandelizm or anything of that sort. That's all I have to say. --MajinVegeta 18:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So youre saying that because my views arent exactly yours I'm a vandal? And further more do you really think Im afraid of you?TheClownPrinceofCrime 14:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, vandalism and having conflicting views is quite different. When it is already discussed that the name should be that way, and then some guy whom you've never seen before comes along and arrogantly and persistently changes the name to whatever he wants simply because he wants it, then that is considered vandalism. And to be frank, I don't give a sh*t if you're afraid of me or not, I just want you to be aware that I in particular follow the rules of the book and enforce them vigorously, and am overjoyed to report vandals if they are persistent.--MajinVegeta 14:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table

I read that a new DBZ episode/movie or something of the sort will introduce Vegeta's brother named Table, so will this be added? (I can't find decent sources at the moment) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.30.226 (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Majin vegeta

Do we really need two of the exact same pictures of Majin Vegeta? Stormin' Foreman 13:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes.TheClownPrinceofCrime 14:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't. There's no sense in posting the same pic twice. --MajinVegeta 14:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulma and Vegeta married ?

Are vegeta and Bulma married or what ?

It is implied that they married during the seven years gap between Cell and Buu sagas. Sign your posts.--Kim Kusanagi 18:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering they have two children together over a long stretch of time I don't think they just had children for the sake of it. --Gaiash 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the last manga (page 95). Vegeta becomes furious when he learns Goku bribes Lord of Lords with a 'naughty' pic of Bulma. The dialouge is as follows: Vegeta- "...Kakarrot, you'd better not be talking about Bulma."

Goku- "EEP?!"

Lord of Lords- "...I do like them mature..."

Vegeta- "I Knew it!! She's my wife!!! Give him a picture of your own wife!!"

The bold letters are even bold in the manga. [[User:SxeFluff|--SxeFluff 03:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)]] 22:20, 10 October 2007[reply]

Sidenote, in Future Trunks's timeline Vegeta and Bulma never did get married. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.163.11.22 (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? [[User:SxeFluff--SxeFluff (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manga probally changed alot of stuff like the anime did when they shipped it America. There was a interview with Akira T. himself and he states that Vegeta and Bulma never get married officially meaning they never went do an altar and have a wedding ceremony. It make sense because seriously can you imagine Vegeta someone who has little patients going to a wedding. Lets be real here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.6.102 (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have sources for that, your claims have no merit. Sarujo (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Vegetaprince.jpg

Image:Vegetaprince.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous Energy Bullets?

While Majin Buu was fighting SS3 Goku, Buu fired many energy blasts in a Machine gun effect. Goku claimed that this was an attack copied from Vegeta. Shouldn't this attack be listed too?

-No need to worry about that anymore, I put it in. This attack is one of Vegeta's signature attacks, Identified in the Super Butoden games as Renzoku Energy Dan. I added it as well as a detailed description of how it works.

Personality

Something should be added to show that he falters to maintain his arrogant personality at certain times-- e.g before his death on Namek and various other times. 86.5.13.121 14:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krilin blasting Vegeta

It said that he Vegeta angered Krilin by callling him a "pathetic human". In japanese, Vegeta threatened to kill him, and that was what prompted Krillin to shoot a ki blast at Vegeta. If the English version says something different, then someone needs to differentiate between the two. But I've editted what happened in the original version, along with some other additions, like to his personality and sharing his food with Boo, among other changes.

In the manga, yeah, I think Vegeta called Krillin something like a "pathetic human", something along those lines anyway. It's the same in the anime too. I think Krillin got so pissed off by Vegeta that he just decided to blast him. Son Gohan (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a chenge to the ssj2 section...

I made it a little bit more impartial to all parts, I think. read it and judge by yourself.--Kim Kusanagi 19:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Deletion

Can someone tell me how to remove these images from speedy deletion? I don't know why thius has been done but the MV and Oozaru Vegeta pics in particular are used for informative purposes that a description alone can't fully relate and they have very full fair use history.Darkwarriorblake 12:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert reasons

As you may have seen on the article itself I have reverted the Vegeta article back at least 100 revisions. The reason being is that in the past few months the article has gotten worse and excess plot information was added. Any minor details can just be changed back, it is not a big deal, but to manually change such a large body of text would be nigh impossible. Discuss below weather you agree with this or not. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand wanting to cut back on the excess info. but in doing this, you deleted some perfectly good new information. It's going to be a long job, but a group of people in the DBZ project need to go through the information themselves and decide whats should stay in and what should come out. This is what the talk page is for. Until then I am going to revert it back to the way it was before. --Lucky Mitch 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no you are not, We are cutting back on plot information, not adding more to it. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I can understand wanting to cut back on the excess information but in doing this, you deleted some perfectly good new information. You should go through the information yourself and choose what stays and what goes. Alot of the parts you reverted back to are inacurate.--Lucky Mitch 00:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but what is more inaccurate: and article which's main body is poorly written and overly long, but with ok other information, or an article with a better main body and par other information? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, neither is good, but factual accuracy is more important than poorly written and overly long information. Poor and excessive writing can be fixed; fixing an article after a great deal of its accurate facts have been deleted and replaced with inaccurate facts that are written grammatically correct is more difficult. I saw that you did a good job of fixing up the excessively long Super Saiyan 2 section. This just needed to be done to every other part of the article. But since the mass reverting of the article is now way in the past, I will not revert it back anymore, but I may add a few things in where I think more detail or information is needed. Tell me if you disapprove of the edits I make in the future so I don't take it too far and cause us to have to do this all over again. You should do the same for all the other contributors as well.--Lucky Mitch 01:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telling users of whether or not you approve of their edits isn't exactly a good thing to do.--$UIT 20:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you think this because...--Lucky Mitch 03:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying that some might take it as WP:OWN.--$UIT 21:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but User:DBZROCKS is also part of Wiki Project Dragonball (just as you are) and represents them and their rules for all the Dragonball pages on Wikipedia. From what I have seen, he has not he has not been doing anything harmful, he is just trying to make sure this particular page abides by the rules set by Wiki Project Dragonball. If it was a person who was not part of Wiki Project Dragonball doing the things DBZROCKS has been doing, I would completely agree with you and your concern, but from what I can tell, he is really just making sure that this page follows the rules set by Wiki Project Dragonball. Of course since you are part of Wiki Project Dragonball, you are on the same level as him and if you disagree with his edits you should talk with him about it.

Also, I am not saying you cannot discuss things with him or anyone else for that matter. If I feel DBZROCKS is not using this power he has correctly I will dispute it with him. If he does not explain why my edit cannot be used with a reasonable/logical excuse, thats when I would feel he is violating WP:OWN. Hopefully he realizes he does not own this page and that not only he has the right to make edits.--Lucky Mitch 00:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not whos making the edits but the edits themselves. If someone is making crummy edits and screwing up the article, I will revert it. It is not only my right to do so but everyone elses. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Games section

The fact that the names of the games are links lets people who want to know more to follow them and find out what forms were available, story and all that miscellaneous junk that doesn't need to be here, including any more pictures than what already exist.

The list form is perfect for those who want to come here, know immediately what games hes in, what systems these are on if they want them and thats all that is needed here, not huge amounts of prose and 'selected' notable games.Darkwarriorblake 00:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ment to see the WP:DBZ Talk page. there is a descussion already started there. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]